I appreciate the efforts of people with connections in either camp for passing on as much information as they can.
But the absence of any definitive information means that a worrying picture is emerging. Logically, as mentioned previously, the reason that the Aussies want the loans to be cleared is so that they can borrow against the club's physical assets, namely The Valley and Sparrows Lane. This suggests that they don't have the funds to run the club without leveraging these assets. This could leave us in a very precarious position if things don't go as well as anticipated and the borrowed money runs out.
I hope that this is a mis-reading of the situation. Along with the rumours of Bowyer and Gallen preparing to walk, it's a nerve-wracking time to be a Charlton fan (again).
It really is incredible we won promotion this season .
This crops up a lot and I really don’t understand why. As said earlier, we had a budget double the divisional average, were top 6 the previous season, signed good players, have talented youngsters coming through and brought in excellent players on loan (and with Williams on a short term contract).
many of us won money from last summer on promotion, top 6 etc.
I don’t see in any way why it was seen as a surprise promotion?
I found promotion a very pleasant surprise given the owner being a knob, given the lack SMT or club strategy, given that Pompey, Barnsley, Doncaster & Sunderland all had the same idea of going up, given that we couldnt name a full squad for the opening day, given that we endured an injury 'crisis' up until January, given that we were forced to accept no cup runs, or infact even attempt to be competitive in them due to the squad size, given that we further reduced that squad size or at least its quality in January by selling Grant when our other talisman was suspended for 3 weeks, given that we hovered around 6th until the last couple of weeks, given that we endured the lottery of the plays offs, given that during those we were at one stage going out in extra-time, won via penalties and then eventually promoted on an injury time goal,
those small matters aside, it was never in doubt I guess, Up the Addicks!
I appreciate the efforts of people with connections in either camp for passing on as much information as they can.
But the absence of any definitive information means that a worrying picture is emerging. Logically, as mentioned previously, the reason that the Aussies want the loans to be cleared is so that they can borrow against the club's physical assets, namely The Valley and Sparrows Lane. This suggests that they don't have the funds to run the club without leveraging these assets. This could leave us in a very precarious position if things don't go as well as anticipated and the borrowed money runs out.
I hope that this is a mis-reading of the situation. Along with the rumours of Bowyer and Gallen preparing to walk, it's a nerve-wracking time to be a Charlton fan (again).
It really is incredible we won promotion this season .
This crops up a lot and I really don’t understand why. As said earlier, we had a budget double the divisional average, were top 6 the previous season, signed good players, have talented youngsters coming through and brought in excellent players on loan (and with Williams on a short term contract).
many of us won money from last summer on promotion, top 6 etc.
I don’t see in any way why it was seen as a surprise promotion?
Let's keep it on the takeover please, chaps.
So many of the new members just love to go off on a tangent and go off piste.
In that interview when Rolo said he'd let the Club go for nothing, I presume he meant as long as the new owner took on the £68m(?) Screwfix debt and the £7m debt to the ex directors too?
If not, leaving aside the £7m for a moment, what happen to the £68m(?) owing, should the Club sells for £35m - £40m?
Sorry if this has been cleared up already, just a bit confused
I appreciate the efforts of people with connections in either camp for passing on as much information as they can.
But the absence of any definitive information means that a worrying picture is emerging. Logically, as mentioned previously, the reason that the Aussies want the loans to be cleared is so that they can borrow against the club's physical assets, namely The Valley and Sparrows Lane. This suggests that they don't have the funds to run the club without leveraging these assets. This could leave us in a very precarious position if things don't go as well as anticipated and the borrowed money runs out.
I hope that this is a mis-reading of the situation. Along with the rumours of Bowyer and Gallen preparing to walk, it's a nerve-wracking time to be a Charlton fan (again).
It really is incredible we won promotion this season .
This crops up a lot and I really don’t understand why. As said earlier, we had a budget double the divisional average, were top 6 the previous season, signed good players, have talented youngsters coming through and brought in excellent players on loan (and with Williams on a short term contract).
many of us won money from last summer on promotion, top 6 etc.
I don’t see in any way why it was seen as a surprise promotion?
Really?
We turned up at the Stadium of Light unable to fill the full quota of subs and 3 of the 5 we did manage to muster up were kids! and lost our best midfielder 2 days before. We relied on loan players who joined us towards the end of the window which was a panic. We then lose a striker who was banging in the goals for fun and don't get anywhere near replacing him. In fact we ended up with a last resort in the end. And last but not least we have Roland Duchâtelet casting a very dark cloud over everything the club was/is trying to achieve. Whilst I accept we have a superb management team the odds were massively stacked against us. But, if you could see promotion through all of this last summer can I please have the winning lottery numbers for this weekend?
Bowyer could have named a full bench but chose not to. I’m sure it was part of his tactic of showing to those above that he needed more players. He’s not the only manager to have adopted this approach.
Our model is based on two key aspects: 1. Bringing low cost youngsters through the academy who develop and attain sell on value and 2: supplementing our squad with bringing in loan players from superior clubs. The hope with the latter is that we can hopefully bring in higher quality players than those in our division without being tied into a long-term financial commitment. We are not the only club that leans on this approach, and as a significant loss making enterprise i doubt you would disagree its not an unrealistic strategy approach regardless of who the owner is. The problem with it is the season currently starts well before the summer window closes, and Prem clubs don’t want to release players until they are clear on how their squad finalises. They call the shots so there is a clear element of risk for us in this approach, which it seems like we benefited from in August but in January we fell foul of by not having a player released late on deadline day we hoped for. No doubt we will have the same scenario this August.
With Grant, Parker was not signed as the replacement for Grant. Vetokele (our highest paid player?) returning from injury was to be Grant’s replacement, with Parker supplementing the squad.
Did it not work out? Was the team noticeably weaker with Igor instead of Karlan, or even when Parker started? We finished the season higher than when Karlan left and our points return i believe was noticeably higher for the post-Grant period. Of course we and Bowyer would have liked the money reinvested, all fans and managers want more signings, and i agree a risk was taken not doing so had it backfired. But its hard to argue against when it worked out so successfully. Sunderland lumped out £4m on Grigg on Deadline Day. Do you think that is seen now as money well spent?
I sadly can't see winning lottery numbers but 18% of us last summer thought we would finish Top 6. Its seems to be par the course now to fear / predict the worse every summer as 45% forecast bottom half for last season and we ended up 3rd.
In that interview when Rocunt said he'd let the Club go for nothing, I presume he meant as long as the new owner took on the £68m(?) Screwfix debt and the £7m debt to the ex directors too?
If not, leaving aside the £7m for a moment, what happen to the £68m(?) owing, should the Club sells for £35m - £40m?
Sorry if this has been cleared up already, just a bit confused
Starpix / Roly would need to write it off as a loss.
I appreciate the efforts of people with connections in either camp for passing on as much information as they can.
But the absence of any definitive information means that a worrying picture is emerging. Logically, as mentioned previously, the reason that the Aussies want the loans to be cleared is so that they can borrow against the club's physical assets, namely The Valley and Sparrows Lane. This suggests that they don't have the funds to run the club without leveraging these assets. This could leave us in a very precarious position if things don't go as well as anticipated and the borrowed money runs out.
I hope that this is a mis-reading of the situation. Along with the rumours of Bowyer and Gallen preparing to walk, it's a nerve-wracking time to be a Charlton fan (again).
The Glazers bought Man Utd with debt, not their own cash. It's normal business practise. Not spending £7m now as they want to use that money to fund the manager, coach and team sounds sensible to me!
I hear what you're saying about it being normal business practice. But the big difference between us and Man United (or indeed any normal business) is that their revenues can be expected to easily service the debt. Ours can't.
Anyway, it's all hypothetical for now. If it comes to pass, then I just hope that whoever is providing the finance against the assets is friendly.
I appreciate the efforts of people with connections in either camp for passing on as much information as they can.
But the absence of any definitive information means that a worrying picture is emerging. Logically, as mentioned previously, the reason that the Aussies want the loans to be cleared is so that they can borrow against the club's physical assets, namely The Valley and Sparrows Lane. This suggests that they don't have the funds to run the club without leveraging these assets. This could leave us in a very precarious position if things don't go as well as anticipated and the borrowed money runs out.
I hope that this is a mis-reading of the situation. Along with the rumours of Bowyer and Gallen preparing to walk, it's a nerve-wracking time to be a Charlton fan (again).
It really is incredible we won promotion this season .
This crops up a lot and I really don’t understand why. As said earlier, we had a budget double the divisional average, were top 6 the previous season, signed good players, have talented youngsters coming through and brought in excellent players on loan (and with Williams on a short term contract).
many of us won money from last summer on promotion, top 6 etc.
I don’t see in any way why it was seen as a surprise promotion?
Agree up to a point, But when you replace a 14 goal pacey striker in January with a non goal scoring forward that a lowly League 1 club doesn't want, and you are left with one out and out striker (Taylor) who spends 50 % of his time as a wide man because he's also the best winger we have then despite the 3 superb loan signings Cullen, Bielik and the underated by some Purrington we could have imploded at any time because Bielik, Williams and Reeves were created by Swarovski. Other players found their best form for years, Bauer and Sarr etc and Aribo, Morgan and Dijksteel stepped up.
Pleased for everyone who made money but gambling on a team that had Duchatelet casting his evil spell in the background means you probably should be certified.
I appreciate the efforts of people with connections in either camp for passing on as much information as they can.
But the absence of any definitive information means that a worrying picture is emerging. Logically, as mentioned previously, the reason that the Aussies want the loans to be cleared is so that they can borrow against the club's physical assets, namely The Valley and Sparrows Lane. This suggests that they don't have the funds to run the club without leveraging these assets. This could leave us in a very precarious position if things don't go as well as anticipated and the borrowed money runs out.
I hope that this is a mis-reading of the situation. Along with the rumours of Bowyer and Gallen preparing to walk, it's a nerve-wracking time to be a Charlton fan (again).
The Glazers bought Man Utd with debt, not their own cash. It's normal business practise. Not spending £7m now as they want to use that money to fund the manager, coach and team sounds sensible to me!
I hear what you're saying about it being normal business practice. But the big difference between us and Man United (or indeed any normal business) is that their revenues can be expected to easily service the debt. Ours can't.
Anyway, it's all hypothetical for now. If it comes to pass, then I just hope that whoever is providing the finance against the assets is friendly.
Yup exactly, Man Utd are a profitable brand that make tens of millions in profit every year. Much easier to to borrow money to buy a proven profitable brand by some one who has a reputation for running successful sport companies like the glazers.
I appreciate the efforts of people with connections in either camp for passing on as much information as they can.
But the absence of any definitive information means that a worrying picture is emerging. Logically, as mentioned previously, the reason that the Aussies want the loans to be cleared is so that they can borrow against the club's physical assets, namely The Valley and Sparrows Lane. This suggests that they don't have the funds to run the club without leveraging these assets. This could leave us in a very precarious position if things don't go as well as anticipated and the borrowed money runs out.
I hope that this is a mis-reading of the situation. Along with the rumours of Bowyer and Gallen preparing to walk, it's a nerve-wracking time to be a Charlton fan (again).
It really is incredible we won promotion this season .
This crops up a lot and I really don’t understand why. As said earlier, we had a budget double the divisional average, were top 6 the previous season, signed good players, have talented youngsters coming through and brought in excellent players on loan (and with Williams on a short term contract).
many of us won money from last summer on promotion, top 6 etc.
I don’t see in any way why it was seen as a surprise promotion?
Really?
We turned up at the Stadium of Light unable to fill the full quota of subs and 3 of the 5 we did manage to muster up were kids! and lost our best midfielder 2 days before. We relied on loan players who joined us towards the end of the window which was a panic. We then lose a striker who was banging in the goals for fun and don't get anywhere near replacing him. In fact we ended up with a last resort in the end. And last but not least we have Roland Duchâtelet casting a very dark cloud over everything the club was/is trying to achieve. Whilst I accept we have a superb management team the odds were massively stacked against us. But, if you could see promotion through all of this last summer can I please have the winning lottery numbers for this weekend?
Bowyer could have named a full bench but chose not to. I’m sure it was part of his tactic of showing to those above that he needed more players. He’s not the only manager to have adopted this approach.
Our model is based on two key aspects: 1. Bringing low cost youngsters through the academy who develop and attain sell on value and 2: supplementing our squad with bringing in loan players from superior clubs. The hope with the latter is that we can hopefully bring in higher quality players than those in our division without being tied into a long-term financial commitment. We are not the only club that leans on this approach, and as a significant loss making enterprise i doubt you would disagree its not an unrealistic strategy approach regardless of who the owner is. The problem with it is the season currently starts well before the summer window closes, and Prem clubs don’t want to release players until they are clear on how their squad finalises. They call the shots so there is a clear element of risk for us in this approach, which it seems like we benefited from in August but in January we fell foul of by not having a player released late on deadline day we hoped for. No doubt we will have the same scenario this August.
With Grant, Parker was not signed as the replacement for Grant. Vetokele (our highest paid player?) returning from injury was to be Grant’s replacement, with Parker supplementing the squad.
Did it not work out? Was the team noticeably weaker with Igor instead of Karlan, or even when Parker started? We finished the season higher than when Karlan left and our points return i believe was noticeably higher for the post-Grant period. Of course we and Bowyer would have liked the money reinvested, all fans and managers want more signings, and i agree a risk was taken not doing so had it backfired. But its hard to argue against when it worked out so successfully. Sunderland lumped out £4m on Grigg on Deadline Day. Do you think that is seen now as money well spent?
I sadly can't see winning lottery numbers but 18% of us last summer thought we would finish Top 6. Its seems to be par the course now to fear / predict the worse every summer as 45% forecast bottom half for last season and we ended up 3rd.
I appreciate the efforts of people with connections in either camp for passing on as much information as they can.
But the absence of any definitive information means that a worrying picture is emerging. Logically, as mentioned previously, the reason that the Aussies want the loans to be cleared is so that they can borrow against the club's physical assets, namely The Valley and Sparrows Lane. This suggests that they don't have the funds to run the club without leveraging these assets. This could leave us in a very precarious position if things don't go as well as anticipated and the borrowed money runs out.
I hope that this is a mis-reading of the situation. Along with the rumours of Bowyer and Gallen preparing to walk, it's a nerve-wracking time to be a Charlton fan (again).
It really is incredible we won promotion this season .
This crops up a lot and I really don’t understand why. As said earlier, we had a budget double the divisional average, were top 6 the previous season, signed good players, have talented youngsters coming through and brought in excellent players on loan (and with Williams on a short term contract).
many of us won money from last summer on promotion, top 6 etc.
I don’t see in any way why it was seen as a surprise promotion?
Really?
We turned up at the Stadium of Light unable to fill the full quota of subs and 3 of the 5 we did manage to muster up were kids! and lost our best midfielder 2 days before. We relied on loan players who joined us towards the end of the window which was a panic. We then lose a striker who was banging in the goals for fun and don't get anywhere near replacing him. In fact we ended up with a last resort in the end. And last but not least we have Roland Duchâtelet casting a very dark cloud over everything the club was/is trying to achieve. Whilst I accept we have a superb management team the odds were massively stacked against us. But, if you could see promotion through all of this last summer can I please have the winning lottery numbers for this weekend?
Bowyer could have named a full bench but chose not to. I’m sure it was part of his tactic of showing to those above that he needed more players. He’s not the only manager to have adopted this approach.
Our model is based on two key aspects: 1. Bringing low cost youngsters through the academy who develop and attain sell on value and 2: supplementing our squad with bringing in loan players from superior clubs. The hope with the latter is that we can hopefully bring in higher quality players than those in our division without being tied into a long-term financial commitment. We are not the only club that leans on this approach, and as a significant loss making enterprise i doubt you would disagree its not an unrealistic strategy approach regardless of who the owner is. The problem with it is the season currently starts well before the summer window closes, and Prem clubs don’t want to release players until they are clear on how their squad finalises. They call the shots so there is a clear element of risk for us in this approach, which it seems like we benefited from in August but in January we fell foul of by not having a player released late on deadline day we hoped for. No doubt we will have the same scenario this August.
With Grant, Parker was not signed as the replacement for Grant. Vetokele (our highest paid player?) returning from injury was to be Grant’s replacement, with Parker supplementing the squad.
Did it not work out? Was the team noticeably weaker with Igor instead of Karlan, or even when Parker started? We finished the season higher than when Karlan left and our points return i believe was noticeably higher for the post-Grant period. Of course we and Bowyer would have liked the money reinvested, all fans and managers want more signings, and i agree a risk was taken not doing so had it backfired. But its hard to argue against when it worked out so successfully. Sunderland lumped out £4m on Grigg on Deadline Day. Do you think that is seen now as money well spent?
I sadly can't see winning lottery numbers but 18% of us last summer thought we would finish Top 6. Its seems to be par the course now to fear / predict the worse every summer as 45% forecast bottom half for last season and we ended up 3rd.
I appreciate the efforts of people with connections in either camp for passing on as much information as they can.
But the absence of any definitive information means that a worrying picture is emerging. Logically, as mentioned previously, the reason that the Aussies want the loans to be cleared is so that they can borrow against the club's physical assets, namely The Valley and Sparrows Lane. This suggests that they don't have the funds to run the club without leveraging these assets. This could leave us in a very precarious position if things don't go as well as anticipated and the borrowed money runs out.
I hope that this is a mis-reading of the situation. Along with the rumours of Bowyer and Gallen preparing to walk, it's a nerve-wracking time to be a Charlton fan (again).
It really is incredible we won promotion this season .
This crops up a lot and I really don’t understand why. As said earlier, we had a budget double the divisional average, were top 6 the previous season, signed good players, have talented youngsters coming through and brought in excellent players on loan (and with Williams on a short term contract).
many of us won money from last summer on promotion, top 6 etc.
I don’t see in any way why it was seen as a surprise promotion?
Agree up to a point, But when you replace a 14 goal pacey striker in January with a non goal scoring forward that a lowly League 1 club doesn't want, and you are left with one out and out striker (Taylor) who spends 50 % of his time as a wide man because he's also the best winger we have then despite the 3 superb loan signings Cullen, Bielik and the underated by some Purrington we could have imploded at any time because Bielik, Williams and Reeves were created by Swarovski. Other players found their best form for years, Bauer and Sarr etc and Aribo, Morgan and Dijksteel stepped up.
Pleased for everyone who made money but gambling on a team that had Duchatelet casting his evil spell in the background means you probably should be certified.
Very good, but the day people show their myriad of losing bets which made Denise Coates worth 4.6 billion in 2018 at bet365 it will always be a mugs game. Charlton finishing in the top half was more of a Conservative bet than top 6 and I did a similar bet 4 years ago ?
You remember the season in the championship when we were relegated Just after I borrowed next doors dog, put my old clothes from the garden on and sold the big issue at a prime location in London !
I found promotion a very pleasant surprise given the owner being a knob, given the lack SMT or club strategy, given that Pompey, Barnsley, Doncaster & Sunderland all had the same idea of going up, given that we couldnt name a full squad for the opening day, given that we endured an injury 'crisis' up until January, given that we were forced to accept no cup runs, or infact even attempt to be competitive in them due to the squad size, given that we further reduced that squad size or at least its quality in January by selling Grant when our other talisman was suspended for 3 weeks, given that we hovered around 6th until the last couple of weeks, given that we endured the lottery of the plays offs, given that during those we were at one stage going out in extra-time, won via penalties and then eventually promoted on an injury time goal,
those small matters aside, it was never in doubt I guess, Up the Addicks!
That’s not a very good poem. Nothing rhymes... #JustSaying
I appreciate the efforts of people with connections in either camp for passing on as much information as they can.
But the absence of any definitive information means that a worrying picture is emerging. Logically, as mentioned previously, the reason that the Aussies want the loans to be cleared is so that they can borrow against the club's physical assets, namely The Valley and Sparrows Lane. This suggests that they don't have the funds to run the club without leveraging these assets. This could leave us in a very precarious position if things don't go as well as anticipated and the borrowed money runs out.
I hope that this is a mis-reading of the situation. Along with the rumours of Bowyer and Gallen preparing to walk, it's a nerve-wracking time to be a Charlton fan (again).
It really is incredible we won promotion this season .
This crops up a lot and I really don’t understand why. As said earlier, we had a budget double the divisional average, were top 6 the previous season, signed good players, have talented youngsters coming through and brought in excellent players on loan (and with Williams on a short term contract).
many of us won money from last summer on promotion, top 6 etc.
I don’t see in any way why it was seen as a surprise promotion?
Really?
We turned up at the Stadium of Light unable to fill the full quota of subs and 3 of the 5 we did manage to muster up were kids! and lost our best midfielder 2 days before. We relied on loan players who joined us towards the end of the window which was a panic. We then lose a striker who was banging in the goals for fun and don't get anywhere near replacing him. In fact we ended up with a last resort in the end. And last but not least we have Roland Duchâtelet casting a very dark cloud over everything the club was/is trying to achieve. Whilst I accept we have a superb management team the odds were massively stacked against us. But, if you could see promotion through all of this last summer can I please have the winning lottery numbers for this weekend?
Bowyer could have named a full bench but chose not to. I’m sure it was part of his tactic of showing to those above that he needed more players. He’s not the only manager to have adopted this approach.
Our model is based on two key aspects: 1. Bringing low cost youngsters through the academy who develop and attain sell on value and 2: supplementing our squad with bringing in loan players from superior clubs. The hope with the latter is that we can hopefully bring in higher quality players than those in our division without being tied into a long-term financial commitment. We are not the only club that leans on this approach, and as a significant loss making enterprise i doubt you would disagree its not an unrealistic strategy approach regardless of who the owner is. The problem with it is the season currently starts well before the summer window closes, and Prem clubs don’t want to release players until they are clear on how their squad finalises. They call the shots so there is a clear element of risk for us in this approach, which it seems like we benefited from in August but in January we fell foul of by not having a player released late on deadline day we hoped for. No doubt we will have the same scenario this August.
With Grant, Parker was not signed as the replacement for Grant. Vetokele (our highest paid player?) returning from injury was to be Grant’s replacement, with Parker supplementing the squad.
Did it not work out? Was the team noticeably weaker with Igor instead of Karlan, or even when Parker started? We finished the season higher than when Karlan left and our points return i believe was noticeably higher for the post-Grant period. Of course we and Bowyer would have liked the money reinvested, all fans and managers want more signings, and i agree a risk was taken not doing so had it backfired. But its hard to argue against when it worked out so successfully. Sunderland lumped out £4m on Grigg on Deadline Day. Do you think that is seen now as money well spent?
I sadly can't see winning lottery numbers but 18% of us last summer thought we would finish Top 6. Its seems to be par the course now to fear / predict the worse every summer as 45% forecast bottom half for last season and we ended up 3rd.
I appreciate the efforts of people with connections in either camp for passing on as much information as they can.
But the absence of any definitive information means that a worrying picture is emerging. Logically, as mentioned previously, the reason that the Aussies want the loans to be cleared is so that they can borrow against the club's physical assets, namely The Valley and Sparrows Lane. This suggests that they don't have the funds to run the club without leveraging these assets. This could leave us in a very precarious position if things don't go as well as anticipated and the borrowed money runs out.
I hope that this is a mis-reading of the situation. Along with the rumours of Bowyer and Gallen preparing to walk, it's a nerve-wracking time to be a Charlton fan (again).
It really is incredible we won promotion this season .
This crops up a lot and I really don’t understand why. As said earlier, we had a budget double the divisional average, were top 6 the previous season, signed good players, have talented youngsters coming through and brought in excellent players on loan (and with Williams on a short term contract).
many of us won money from last summer on promotion, top 6 etc.
I don’t see in any way why it was seen as a surprise promotion?
Really?
We turned up at the Stadium of Light unable to fill the full quota of subs and 3 of the 5 we did manage to muster up were kids! and lost our best midfielder 2 days before. We relied on loan players who joined us towards the end of the window which was a panic. We then lose a striker who was banging in the goals for fun and don't get anywhere near replacing him. In fact we ended up with a last resort in the end. And last but not least we have Roland Duchâtelet casting a very dark cloud over everything the club was/is trying to achieve. Whilst I accept we have a superb management team the odds were massively stacked against us. But, if you could see promotion through all of this last summer can I please have the winning lottery numbers for this weekend?
Bowyer could have named a full bench but chose not to. I’m sure it was part of his tactic of showing to those above that he needed more players. He’s not the only manager to have adopted this approach.
Our model is based on two key aspects: 1. Bringing low cost youngsters through the academy who develop and attain sell on value and 2: supplementing our squad with bringing in loan players from superior clubs. The hope with the latter is that we can hopefully bring in higher quality players than those in our division without being tied into a long-term financial commitment. We are not the only club that leans on this approach, and as a significant loss making enterprise i doubt you would disagree its not an unrealistic strategy approach regardless of who the owner is. The problem with it is the season currently starts well before the summer window closes, and Prem clubs don’t want to release players until they are clear on how their squad finalises. They call the shots so there is a clear element of risk for us in this approach, which it seems like we benefited from in August but in January we fell foul of by not having a player released late on deadline day we hoped for. No doubt we will have the same scenario this August.
With Grant, Parker was not signed as the replacement for Grant. Vetokele (our highest paid player?) returning from injury was to be Grant’s replacement, with Parker supplementing the squad.
Did it not work out? Was the team noticeably weaker with Igor instead of Karlan, or even when Parker started? We finished the season higher than when Karlan left and our points return i believe was noticeably higher for the post-Grant period. Of course we and Bowyer would have liked the money reinvested, all fans and managers want more signings, and i agree a risk was taken not doing so had it backfired. But its hard to argue against when it worked out so successfully. Sunderland lumped out £4m on Grigg on Deadline Day. Do you think that is seen now as money well spent?
I sadly can't see winning lottery numbers but 18% of us last summer thought we would finish Top 6. Its seems to be par the course now to fear / predict the worse every summer as 45% forecast bottom half for last season and we ended up 3rd.
81% of us predicted we wouldn't be promoted, with the most popular finishing band being 13th-20th. I think that illustrates both that we generally didn't expect promotion and that the management (Bowyer et al) far exceeded expectations.
1685, The first street lighting is introduced in London.
To say nothing of the accession of James II (last Catholic King of England, Scotland and Ireland), the Monmouth Rebellion, defeated at the Battle of Sedgemoor, and Judge Jeffreys and the Bloody Assizes (though Jeffreys' evil reputation is probably overblown, as those supporting the 1688 usurpation of James II sought to justify their actions).
Or the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, which made Protestantism illegal in France, and encouraged Huguenot migration to Britain.
Or the birth of Johann Sebastian Bach and George Frideric Handel
Parker wasn't the replacement for Grant, but as night follows day when Igor's body let him down yet again he ended up playing as a striker. You can spin it how you want but we had one fit striker from January onwards and even the superb Taylor spent lots of time as a wide man.
I appreciate the efforts of people with connections in either camp for passing on as much information as they can.
But the absence of any definitive information means that a worrying picture is emerging. Logically, as mentioned previously, the reason that the Aussies want the loans to be cleared is so that they can borrow against the club's physical assets, namely The Valley and Sparrows Lane. This suggests that they don't have the funds to run the club without leveraging these assets. This could leave us in a very precarious position if things don't go as well as anticipated and the borrowed money runs out.
I hope that this is a mis-reading of the situation. Along with the rumours of Bowyer and Gallen preparing to walk, it's a nerve-wracking time to be a Charlton fan (again).
It really is incredible we won promotion this season .
This crops up a lot and I really don’t understand why. As said earlier, we had a budget double the divisional average, were top 6 the previous season, signed good players, have talented youngsters coming through and brought in excellent players on loan (and with Williams on a short term contract).
many of us won money from last summer on promotion, top 6 etc.
I don’t see in any way why it was seen as a surprise promotion?
Really?
We turned up at the Stadium of Light unable to fill the full quota of subs and 3 of the 5 we did manage to muster up were kids! and lost our best midfielder 2 days before. We relied on loan players who joined us towards the end of the window which was a panic. We then lose a striker who was banging in the goals for fun and don't get anywhere near replacing him. In fact we ended up with a last resort in the end. And last but not least we have Roland Duchâtelet casting a very dark cloud over everything the club was/is trying to achieve. Whilst I accept we have a superb management team the odds were massively stacked against us. But, if you could see promotion through all of this last summer can I please have the winning lottery numbers for this weekend?
Bowyer could have named a full bench but chose not to. I’m sure it was part of his tactic of showing to those above that he needed more players. He’s not the only manager to have adopted this approach.
Our model is based on two key aspects: 1. Bringing low cost youngsters through the academy who develop and attain sell on value and 2: supplementing our squad with bringing in loan players from superior clubs. The hope with the latter is that we can hopefully bring in higher quality players than those in our division without being tied into a long-term financial commitment. We are not the only club that leans on this approach, and as a significant loss making enterprise i doubt you would disagree its not an unrealistic strategy approach regardless of who the owner is. The problem with it is the season currently starts well before the summer window closes, and Prem clubs don’t want to release players until they are clear on how their squad finalises. They call the shots so there is a clear element of risk for us in this approach, which it seems like we benefited from in August but in January we fell foul of by not having a player released late on deadline day we hoped for. No doubt we will have the same scenario this August.
With Grant, Parker was not signed as the replacement for Grant. Vetokele (our highest paid player?) returning from injury was to be Grant’s replacement, with Parker supplementing the squad.
Did it not work out? Was the team noticeably weaker with Igor instead of Karlan, or even when Parker started? We finished the season higher than when Karlan left and our points return i believe was noticeably higher for the post-Grant period. Of course we and Bowyer would have liked the money reinvested, all fans and managers want more signings, and i agree a risk was taken not doing so had it backfired. But its hard to argue against when it worked out so successfully. Sunderland lumped out £4m on Grigg on Deadline Day. Do you think that is seen now as money well spent?
I sadly can't see winning lottery numbers but 18% of us last summer thought we would finish Top 6. Its seems to be par the course now to fear / predict the worse every summer as 45% forecast bottom half for last season and we ended up 3rd.
81% of us predicted we wouldn't be promoted, with the most popular finishing band being 13th-20th. I think that illustrates both that we generally didn't expect promotion and that the management (Bowyer et al) far exceeded expectations.
Hardly surprising 81% of people thought that with all the constant bed wetting that goes on here. I think I said 9th I maybe wrong. I didn't realise how good Taylor was and never thought Grant would be a regular league 1 goal scorer, let alone a Premier league. At no doubt did I think we were heading for relegation.
With the wage bill we have had for the last 3 years the play offs is par. Once you get there its a lottery. Lee Bowyer has the potential to be a great manager, as I have previously said. I wouldn't be so sure people would call it a miracle if it wasn't framed with the baffon Robinson and the awful recruitment conducted for Slades tenure. Not sure we can blame little Tommy for Novak, Ajose, Crofts, Foley etc.
As an aside I have seen people say we will always do well in league one, due to the size of the club. Does anyone know where our wage bill would rank if we broke even? Ie our income v others expenditure?
Parker wasn't the replacement for Grant, but as night follows day when Igor's body let him down yet again he ended up playing as a striker. You can spin it how you want but we had one fit striker from January onwards and even the superb Taylor spent lots of time as a wide man.
Parker calls himself a striker, Gallen also called him a striker.
He wasn’t signed with the intention to play him in midfield.
Parker wasn't the replacement for Grant, but as night follows day when Igor's body let him down yet again he ended up playing as a striker. You can spin it how you want but we had one fit striker from January onwards and even the superb Taylor spent lots of time as a wide man.
Parker calls himself a striker, Gallen also called him a striker.
He wasn’t signed with the intention to play him in midfield.
Yes but I believe @AFKABartram point was he wasn't signed to start, he was signed as back up.
The club will not be sold anytime soon because the owner wants too much for it. That will have to change before anything happens and we ought to have worked that out by now - despite the crap we might be fed from time to time.
I was replying to @soapboxsam who seemed to be suggesting Parker was played out of position.
I agree he was signed as back up.
At 9.37 this morning I first called Parker a non goal scoring forward. I have no problems calling Parker a striker even though it's an oxymoron. Parker came to the party late on with his unselfish work and in the second half at Wembley played some decent passes.
So CL members thought Vetokele would stay fit ! Bizarrely so did Duchatelet.
This is clutching at straws but considering most of us would attend games again if Roland goes could we not appeal to the aussies that if they bite the bullet and pay the however many million up front I for one would not be sad if they put match day prices up a bit in the few coming years to compensate. Just please get rid of this testicular torsion of a man draining every good vibe away from the club.
Parker wasn't the replacement for Grant, but as night follows day when Igor's body let him down yet again he ended up playing as a striker. You can spin it how you want but we had one fit striker from January onwards and even the superb Taylor spent lots of time as a wide man.
Remember we also let Ajose go in January so Parker could be seen as his replacement. Neither score many goals. In my opinion, we might have caught Barnsley had we kept Grant or brought in a goal-scorer. Immaterial now but how we need Bowyer to be here in August.
I appreciate the efforts of people with connections in either camp for passing on as much information as they can.
But the absence of any definitive information means that a worrying picture is emerging. Logically, as mentioned previously, the reason that the Aussies want the loans to be cleared is so that they can borrow against the club's physical assets, namely The Valley and Sparrows Lane. This suggests that they don't have the funds to run the club without leveraging these assets. This could leave us in a very precarious position if things don't go as well as anticipated and the borrowed money runs out.
I hope that this is a mis-reading of the situation. Along with the rumours of Bowyer and Gallen preparing to walk, it's a nerve-wracking time to be a Charlton fan (again).
It really is incredible we won promotion this season .
This crops up a lot and I really don’t understand why. As said earlier, we had a budget double the divisional average, were top 6 the previous season, signed good players, have talented youngsters coming through and brought in excellent players on loan (and with Williams on a short term contract).
many of us won money from last summer on promotion, top 6 etc.
I don’t see in any way why it was seen as a surprise promotion?
Really?
We turned up at the Stadium of Light unable to fill the full quota of subs and 3 of the 5 we did manage to muster up were kids! and lost our best midfielder 2 days before. We relied on loan players who joined us towards the end of the window which was a panic. We then lose a striker who was banging in the goals for fun and don't get anywhere near replacing him. In fact we ended up with a last resort in the end. And last but not least we have Roland Duchâtelet casting a very dark cloud over everything the club was/is trying to achieve. Whilst I accept we have a superb management team the odds were massively stacked against us. But, if you could see promotion through all of this last summer can I please have the winning lottery numbers for this weekend?
Bowyer could have named a full bench but chose not to. I’m sure it was part of his tactic of showing to those above that he needed more players. He’s not the only manager to have adopted this approach.
Our model is based on two key aspects: 1. Bringing low cost youngsters through the academy who develop and attain sell on value and 2: supplementing our squad with bringing in loan players from superior clubs. The hope with the latter is that we can hopefully bring in higher quality players than those in our division without being tied into a long-term financial commitment. We are not the only club that leans on this approach, and as a significant loss making enterprise i doubt you would disagree its not an unrealistic strategy approach regardless of who the owner is. The problem with it is the season currently starts well before the summer window closes, and Prem clubs don’t want to release players until they are clear on how their squad finalises. They call the shots so there is a clear element of risk for us in this approach, which it seems like we benefited from in August but in January we fell foul of by not having a player released late on deadline day we hoped for. No doubt we will have the same scenario this August.
With Grant, Parker was not signed as the replacement for Grant. Vetokele (our highest paid player?) returning from injury was to be Grant’s replacement, with Parker supplementing the squad.
Did it not work out? Was the team noticeably weaker with Igor instead of Karlan, or even when Parker started? We finished the season higher than when Karlan left and our points return i believe was noticeably higher for the post-Grant period. Of course we and Bowyer would have liked the money reinvested, all fans and managers want more signings, and i agree a risk was taken not doing so had it backfired. But its hard to argue against when it worked out so successfully. Sunderland lumped out £4m on Grigg on Deadline Day. Do you think that is seen now as money well spent?
I sadly can't see winning lottery numbers but 18% of us last summer thought we would finish Top 6. Its seems to be par the course now to fear / predict the worse every summer as 45% forecast bottom half for last season and we ended up 3rd.
81% of us predicted we wouldn't be promoted, with the most popular finishing band being 13th-20th. I think that illustrates both that we generally didn't expect promotion and that the management (Bowyer et al) far exceeded expectations.
81% of us not predicting promotion, meanwhile Bowyer said from Day 1 he wanted a Top 2 finish with 18 pts from blocks of 9 games.
We finished in 3rd just 3 pts off 2nd place. This to me suggests on CL we do often take a worst case scenario view on things. A bit like the what do we do if Bowyer leaves question, instead of us all working ourselves up into a panic let's see if that contract gets signed first.
Comments
given the owner being a knob,
given the lack SMT or club strategy,
given that Pompey, Barnsley, Doncaster & Sunderland all had the same idea of going up,
given that we couldnt name a full squad for the opening day,
given that we endured an injury 'crisis' up until January,
given that we were forced to accept no cup runs, or infact even attempt to be competitive in them due to the squad size,
given that we further reduced that squad size or at least its quality in January by selling Grant when our other talisman was suspended for 3 weeks,
given that we hovered around 6th until the last couple of weeks,
given that we endured the lottery of the plays offs,
given that during those we were at one stage going out in extra-time, won via penalties and then eventually promoted on an injury time goal,
those small matters aside, it was never in doubt I guess, Up the Addicks!
If not, leaving aside the £7m for a moment, what happen to the £68m(?) owing, should the Club sells for £35m - £40m?
Sorry if this has been cleared up already, just a bit confused
Bowyer could have named a full bench but chose not to. I’m sure it was part of his tactic of showing to those above that he needed more players. He’s not the only manager to have adopted this approach.
Our model is based on two key aspects: 1. Bringing low cost youngsters through the academy who develop and attain sell on value and 2: supplementing our squad with bringing in loan players from superior clubs. The hope with the latter is that we can hopefully bring in higher quality players than those in our division without being tied into a long-term financial commitment. We are not the only club that leans on this approach, and as a significant loss making enterprise i doubt you would disagree its not an unrealistic strategy approach regardless of who the owner is. The problem with it is the season currently starts well before the summer window closes, and Prem clubs don’t want to release players until they are clear on how their squad finalises. They call the shots so there is a clear element of risk for us in this approach, which it seems like we benefited from in August but in January we fell foul of by not having a player released late on deadline day we hoped for. No doubt we will have the same scenario this August.
With Grant, Parker was not signed as the replacement for Grant. Vetokele (our highest paid player?) returning from injury was to be Grant’s replacement, with Parker supplementing the squad.
Did it not work out? Was the team noticeably weaker with Igor instead of Karlan, or even when Parker started? We finished the season higher than when Karlan left and our points return i believe was noticeably higher for the post-Grant period. Of course we and Bowyer would have liked the money reinvested, all fans and managers want more signings, and i agree a risk was taken not doing so had it backfired. But its hard to argue against when it worked out so successfully. Sunderland lumped out £4m on Grigg on Deadline Day. Do you think that is seen now as money well spent?
I sadly can't see winning lottery numbers but 18% of us last summer thought we would finish Top 6. Its seems to be par the course now to fear / predict the worse every summer as 45% forecast bottom half for last season and we ended up 3rd.
https://forum.charltonlife.com/discussion/82671/poll-where-will-we-finish-this-season/p1
I hear what you're saying about it being normal business practice. But the big difference between us and Man United (or indeed any normal business) is that their revenues can be expected to easily service the debt. Ours can't.
Anyway, it's all hypothetical for now. If it comes to pass, then I just hope that whoever is providing the finance against the assets is friendly.
Charlton finishing in the top half was more of a Conservative bet than top 6 and I did a similar bet 4 years ago ?
You remember the season in the championship when we were relegated
Just after I borrowed next doors dog, put my old clothes from the garden on and sold the big issue at a prime location in London !
Or the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, which made Protestantism illegal in France, and encouraged Huguenot migration to Britain.
Or the birth of Johann Sebastian Bach and George Frideric Handel
You can spin it how you want but we had one fit striker from January onwards and even the superb Taylor spent lots of time as a wide man.
With the wage bill we have had for the last 3 years the play offs is par. Once you get there its a lottery. Lee Bowyer has the potential to be a great manager, as I have previously said. I wouldn't be so sure people would call it a miracle if it wasn't framed with the baffon Robinson and the awful recruitment conducted for Slades tenure. Not sure we can blame little Tommy for Novak, Ajose, Crofts, Foley etc.
As an aside I have seen people say we will always do well in league one, due to the size of the club. Does anyone know where our wage bill would rank if we broke even? Ie our income v others expenditure?
He wasn’t signed with the intention to play him in midfield.
I agree he was signed as back up.
Parker came to the party late on with his unselfish work and in the second half at Wembley played some decent passes.
So CL members thought Vetokele would stay fit ! Bizarrely so did Duchatelet.
Just please get rid of this testicular torsion of a man draining every good vibe away from the club.
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Charlton&year_start=1400&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CCharlton%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2CCharlton%3B%2Cc0
We finished in 3rd just 3 pts off 2nd place. This to me suggests on CL we do often take a worst case scenario view on things. A bit like the what do we do if Bowyer leaves question, instead of us all working ourselves up into a panic let's see if that contract gets signed first.